The project taught me a new respect for detailing. Before this project I have always been aware of the importance to detail and thought I had a good grasp on detailing. However, throughout this process I learned new and creative thinking skills to help hammer out details. I based my project process off of details and will admit that I might have got a little caught up in this process. I spent a large amount of my time in building the studio site model thus it set me back during my design development stage. If I could do anything differently it would have been to of concentrating more on my design development process. Overall, I am pleased with the outcome of my project and the amount of work I put into it, just wish I could of had more time! But we always wish for more time!

Another note. The guest critics I thought were absolutely great. Not only for my project but as a whole. Some of the material and suggestions were obvious, but once they were able to dig deeper into everyone’s project, the discussions became more interesting. I want to thank all of them for coming and sharing their professional expertise. I also want to thank Cambridge Architectural for tuning in throughout our studio and for their continued support. I hope to work with them again, perhaps in the professional world.

At this point I have settled on a few design decisions all of which also provide an equal number of questions that must be answered. The design of the main stage is a system of metal (not sure what kind) blades that have attachments in three places. The bottom attachment is a pin connection allowing for rotation. The upper two connections are connected to steel tubing which spans beyond the distance of the stage anchoring into a mechanical device that will allow for the system as a whole to rotate providing shading, a back drop, and it will act as a curtain when needed.

Looking straight on at the main stage

Section of the system

Things I am starting to work on are as followed:

– the site plan as a whole, its egress, sightlines and placement on the site.

– main stage vs. surrounding structures, the relationship they share with eachother

From visiting the site at Pyramid Hill and the existing performance stage, it left me with many questions. From these questions I started looking into different stages that contain elements that either interest me and will lead me in a direction for my design.

Above demonstrates the typical seating of an amphitheater but incorporates it into the landscape. The current conditions consist of a sloped lawn, however the slope doesn’t really pick up directly in front of the stage so a seating similar to above could be incorporated.

Above the scale of this stage area is what interests me. This is more or less the actual allowance our program dictates. I also enjoy the view of the lake the stage provides.

Here is an example of how the dressing/restrooms are addressed. Here the front of the structures are covered with some vegetation and they don’t obstruct the view from the stage.

Here the dressing/restrooms are addressed a little different than above. They feel as though they aren’t connected to the stage how they’re offset and set back. Furthermore, the openness in front of the stage is overkill. I respect the airiness however; it sets the stage apart from the viewers.

Here The openness is succsessful. The back of the stage frames a view of the lake behind it and the structure doesn’t over power the surrounding space.

In this last photograph I enjoy how the roof structure is separate from the stage area and the openness that is achieved from such a large structure. Similarly to some of the other performance stages, the rear of the stage is open allowing views to the lake.

Next step is to do a site analysis with accurate measurements, layout, current/possible view points, and a rough outline of massing.